110 Comments

1. beautifulatrocities:

No, he doesn’t really mean it, but like the Dems who voted to cut off funding to South Vietnam & Cambodia in 73-74, he’s only interested in scoring political points regardless of who dies. The result of a withdrawal from Iraq would be far more serious for the US than the result of the Dems’ 74 gamesmanship, which merely led to the deaths of millions of Vietnamese & Cambodians (for which neither Kerry or Kennedy ever lost any sleep).

Nov 17, 2005 - 2:28 pm 2. markus:

Perhaps it is time for the Iraqi silent majority to decide what to do with Zarkawi and co. Perhaps they will decide freedom is worth dying for. Perhaps not. Either way, it is their lives and their destiny.

I’m not sure if Murtha’s right, but he is one of the most pro-defense Democrats in Congress, and this is more bad news for the Bush Administration. Much easier to play counterattack with cultural politics against Dennis Kucinich and ANSWER than to defend Iraqi policy with conservative realists. Soon, I bet we’ll be hearing the same lines from Republican moderates and iconoclasts, the Chris Shays and Chuck Hagels. Murtha by the way is NOT doing this because he is worried about his reelection. Bush has no one to blame for himself — almost as if he prefers losing and giving the finger to a political opponent than winning politically. His “which side are you on” speech on Veterans day was not helpful.

Nov 17, 2005 - 2:47 pm 3. ex-democrat:

markus – “which side are you on” IS “helpful” to those of us on this side – and it’s not meant to be “helpful” to those of you on the other.

Nov 17, 2005 - 3:17 pm 4. Silicon valley Jim:

I’m not sure if Murtha’s right, but he is one of the most pro-defense Democrats in Congress

Is that anything like being the second-best songwriter in John Lennon’s household prior to December 1980?

Murtha by the way is NOT doing this because he is worried about his reelection.

I must have missed the spot where anybody said it was. beautiful atrocities said that Murtha was “only interested in scoring political points regardless of who dies”, which may well not be the same thing as being concerned about his own re-election.

Nov 17, 2005 - 3:19 pm 5. Silicon valley Jim:

My bad. Roger started out by saying that Murtha’s statement had to do with being re-elected. I doubt that Murtha’s seat is in any danger of changing hands; very few of them are.

Nov 17, 2005 - 3:23 pm 6. Gideon7:

Murtha is skating on thin ice with his district’s voters. If it wasn’t for the gerrymandered district and the power of incumbancy, he’d be toast. His district sprawls across rural southwest PA, mostly a poor blue collar mining area with high unemployment, very pro union. His name is on everything here, like Byrd is in WV, and he’s been a congressman basically forever.

The voters are classic Reagan demoncrats. The area has more people under uniform proportionately than any other district in the state (IIRC). They are very patriotic.

Flight 93 crashed here. Murtha was the main sponsor of the bill that funded the memorial for the “Red Crescent”. People are livid about it.

The GOP is almost nonexistant here. But if they put up a credible candidate I’m sure that Murtha would be out.

Nov 17, 2005 - 3:34 pm 7. jerry:

I hate to say if but I believe the terrorists may have won the war. We already know that Zahawiri has indentified the Washington politcial world as the US center of gravity. That center has cracked. Congress will eventually pass a funding act that cuts off support for the War and, just like Vietnam, AQ and the Baathist will take over the country. The weak kneed politicians will look the other way as Iraq is turned into an Afghanistan and all the movement toward consensual government in the region will be reversed. When the next terroist attack hits the United States they will then blame Bush rather then their own cowardice in the case the Sunshine Republicans and treason in the case of the Copperhead Democrats and their media allies.

This will happen despite the false meme of “another Vietnam”. We have yet to reach the D-Day KIA number after three years of fighting. The weekly KIA toll in Vietnam was 10 times what we see in Iraq. If this body politic cannot sustain this level of loss when we can see definate progress in the formation of Consensual government then all is lost. Al Qada has won the war because we have proven them right. Kill enough Americans,and that number is small, then we run away every time.

Bush is left with a single choice to win the war in Iraq. Train up enough Shia and Kurdish Iraqi troops and let them do what Arabs have done in the past when faced with a treacherous minority. Kill as many as possible and drive the rest out of country. For a lack of better term, the Milosevic solution is the only was to prevent defeat.

Nov 17, 2005 - 3:41 pm 8. dougf:

I’m not sure if Murtha’s right, but he is one of the most pro-defense Democrats in Congress, and this is more bad news for the Bush Administration.–Markus

Like everthing in the whole accursed world is somehow related to how it affects the Bush Administration. How much more pathetic can this get? What about the probable consequences of this IMO silly withdrawl comment? While the terrorists play for keeps in terms of decades, we examine our navels and think of how bored we are if something takes longer than a TV show. Not hopeful,folks.

I’m not sure if Murtha is right either but I am willing to leave it up to the Iraqis and the US forces on the ground to determine that for me. I don’t care if Murtha WAS in the Marines. He’s not now and has not been for decades. My guess is that John McCain is for once actually 100% correct on this issue and I point all interested parties to his article in the NYP today.

Frankly the longer this goes on the less current day America resembles what made it great, and the more it resembles modern day Europe in its dotage.

Everyone better hope that America was NOT the new Rome because this slice of history looks MUCH more like the ‘decline’ than it does the ‘rise’. I wonder if Rome was awash with ‘nuance’ when it all started to go bad?

Johnny Tells it Like It Is(Finally)!

Nov 17, 2005 - 3:43 pm 9. Bostonian:

Markus, you make your interests evident when you say that Murtha’s statement is “more bad news for the Bush Administration.”

For those of us who actually care about the war on terrorism, we’d phrase that differently:

“more bad news for the anti-jihadi side of the GWOT.”

But then you’ve never shown too much interest in the real war, just in the war that the Democrats and media have been waging against GWB since the day he was elected.

Nov 17, 2005 - 3:51 pm 10. Paul:

Look, what would be your worst nightmare if you were a Bush-hating Democrat?

Iraq getting on its feet with the ISF sucessfully taking over security, AQ and the insurgents defeated, political progress leading up to a functioning democracy with individual rights and the economic wealth that free market capitalism produces, most of the troops home, the rest of the ME looking to Iraq as a model, and the hated George W. Bush and the Bush Doctrine vindicated.

What happens to the credibility of the Democrats who screamed of the worst economy since Hoover and a hopeless Viet Nam style quagmire, from which they maintained a humiliating American withdrawl repleat with the bloody chaos we’d leave behind, was the best case scenario?

The core of the Democrat Party has bet the farm on a repeat of Viet Nam in Iraq. They are lobbying for defeat through a vicious propaganda campaign aimed at destroying the American public’s morale, while simultaneously encouraging the enemy and sowing doubt amongst our allies.

This is politics at its most debased and disgusting. It is the kind of behavior that leads to the ruin of nations if it is unchecked.

Nov 17, 2005 - 3:55 pm 11. Ed Poinsett:

Paul

Any chance a spit-on reception for the troops they want to bring home early is in the works somewhere?

The dems have been saying all along that Iraq was another Vietnam. Now it’s plain what they mean.

Cut and Run, Cut and Run. Maybe Kerry can revive Winter Soldier.

Nov 17, 2005 - 4:21 pm 12. legion:

John Murtha has become a hysterical voice among hysterical democratic voices. Throw up your hands, dance around, and scream “we don’t know nothin’ bout birthin’ no babies, massah!”, or something like that. What pathetic wusses. Is anybody willing to admit they voted for any of these losers?

Nov 17, 2005 - 4:41 pm 13. Kuz:

John Murtha has become a hysterical voice among hysterical democratic voices. Throw up your hands, dance around, and scream “we don’t know nothin’ bout birthin’ no babies, massah!”, or something like that. What pathetic wusses. Is anybody willing to admit they voted for any of these losers?

Posted by: legion

I know this is parody, but I don’t get it — who are you supposed to be?

Nov 17, 2005 - 4:55 pm 14. Shochu John:

jerry says:

“Bush is left with a single choice to win the war in Iraq. Train up enough Shia and Kurdish Iraqi troops and let them do what Arabs have done in the past when faced with a treacherous minority. Kill as many as possible and drive the rest out of country. For a lack of better term, the Milosevic solution is the only was to prevent defeat.”

You’re right, Jerry. The recent discovery of a extralegal prison/toture facility run by the Badr Corps, the militia of the SCIRI, the most powerful party in modern Shi’te-run Iraq, full of Sunnis just really illustrates the direction of this conflict. There is only one question. Do we really want to arm one side of the conflict, which is what we’re doing by training and supplying the new Iraqi army? You seem to expect, not unrealistically I may add, that doing so will expedite a genocide of 4-5 million people. You seem to be advocating this. Is that really what the United States stands for? Do we want to be a part of it? I submit we do not.

Nov 17, 2005 - 4:59 pm 15. Terrye:

Sochu:

There were 173 people in detention in that jail, seven of them showed signs of abuse, there is going to be an investigation…how does this translate into the extermination of 4 to 5 million people?

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:06 pm 16. ajf:

Apparently Murtha is an advocate of recycling. That’s what passes for a hawkish Democrat. Wouldn’t be right to call ‘em un-patriotic though, they’re the f’n enemy.

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:07 pm 17. Kuz:

True, 2,000 deaths is a relatively low number compared to US conflicts in the past, but at this point, in a 2+ year guerilla war, each soldier we send over does not aid our cause in the WOT — he just provides another target for our enemies. When they have the election in December for a new parliament, I think they should let the Iraqis vote in a referendum: Do you want US soldiers to stick around?

When the vote comes out 95% NO, we pack it up and get to work on whatever the hell Plan B is.

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:09 pm 18. Terrye:

Murtha has been working his way up to this for some time. He also has a history of supporting the draft.

I think it is defeatist and it makes Democrats look weak and makes terrorists feel strong.

I don’t think the fact that he was in the Marines decades ago matters as much as the fact that he is a Democrat. After all McCain has a strong military background and he feels very differently about this issue.

Washington has become so partisan that nothing else seems to matter, including the future of the country.

If I understand his so called plan we would have a kind of half ass withdrawal. The troops would go to Kuwait and be called in to act as back up.

That seems like an accident waiting to happen.

For some time now I have watched the suicide bombings and the Shia leaders would call for restraint.

I was thinking sooner or later someone would stop restraining themselves. That could be what is happening in the detention center. But whatever it is, it needs to stop now.

What it does show is that the Iraqis are not unlike a lot of the other people in the region whose prisons are infamous, but it does seem there is going to be an effort made to deal with the crime.

I think that running away from Iraq would be a betrayal of the Iraqi people, of the young men and women who have died there and of what America is supposed to stand for.

I am old enough to remember people saying that if we left Viet Nam the killing would end, we were the problem. That was not true then and it is not true now.

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:17 pm 19. Terrye:

Kuz:

How can you say those soldiers in Iraq are not aiding in our war on Terror?

Do you think it is confined to a certain geographical locale?

Most Iraqis want us to leave when they can maintain control without us. So it depends on how you ask the question, most say stay right now…most say go asap.

But if we abandon the people of Iraq we will lose in the war on Terror because it is about terror and chaos and quite plainly a battle of wills. The enemy is a fanatic who assumes we will run away and that very thing [he is convinced] is his only hope.

So abandoning Iraq before the people of Iraq are ready is abandoning the war on Terror.

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:23 pm 20. Shochu John:

Well Terrye,

Firstly, let me just say that the Iraqi Interior Minister is the one saying that only seven of them showed signs of abuse. It seems presumutious to take such a downplay of the events as fact, especially given accounts of the discovery of the facility by US forces ( here and here )

Secondly, it is not my contention that the condition of these detainees sets will lead to a genocide. If you look at modern Iraq, what you have is an intractible insurgence that has it’s entire base as one particular sectarian/ethnic group, and virtually all members of that group are opposed to the new order. In such situations, the group in power has a tremendous incentive to end the insurgence by extermination of the restive group. Such an ethnic cleansing is therefore a distinct possibility, which was my point in agreeing with Jerry’s statement on this issue. The situation has already devolved into violence. A violent civil conflict in which one group controls the military starts to look like Milosevic’s Yugoslavia. Jerry’s analysis isn’t far off. His apparent advocacy for genocide, however, is nothing I can get behind

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:25 pm 21. dougf:

When the vote comes out 95% NO, we pack it up and get to work on whatever the hell Plan B is.–Kuz

The Dec 15th election is for the choice of a sovereign Iraqi government which barring unforeseen circumstances will rule for 4 years. It is the choice of that government which will determine for how long we are requested to remain in Iraq. That by the way is why the elections take place. To elect a government to GOVERN. They will advise us with due consultation when it is time to vamoose. That’s always been the plan.

Most people in Iraq want the Coaltion to leave, like that’s a big surprise, but most don’t want it to leave just yet.

There is no Plan “B”, here chief, which you know but want to play silly little games about. It’s binary.

Victory or Defeat !!

Victory has potentially promising outcomes all round, but no-one really knows exactly what will eventually happen.

Defeat on the other hand has a very clear range of vision attached to it. The primary result will be the practical end of US influence. Not tomorrow certainly —- but soon. The BARBARIANS will have won.

That is ,in the current world environment, simply unacceptable.

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:30 pm 22. wingnutsrus:

My fellow Americans

I have a question for you. Here’s one thing I don’t understand. If you really believe that the Iraq war is so important that we shouldn’t follow just cut and run–that we should stay the course and do our duty to promote democracy in the Middle East–then don’t you think we should have a draft? Seriously. Wasn’t that the argument behind Vietnam–that we didn’t have the will to win? Our forces are getting stretched thin and if we really want to win the war we should do whatever it takes, right? So why don’t we have a draft and do this thing right!

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:31 pm 23. Sandy P:

Don’t need a draft.

Whatever it would take is to flatten Syria for starters.

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:35 pm 24. Terrye:

Schochu:

Well John… back when Saddam was in power it was not unusual to put thousands of people into mass graves. Often times they would tie the children together and then shoot one and just shove the rest of them in the hole and throw on some dirt. Way waste the ammo?

And it seems that a lot of folks out there think that should be the guy running Iraq today.

One huge difference here of course is that there is going to be an investiagation and the Interior Minister is in trouble…once upon a time the only thing he would have been in trouble for was the lack of dead people.

Given the culture and the hatred I would be amazed if there were not some incidents like this but I do not think they should be tolerated.

As for the future of Iraq, it seems to me that even with all their problems more and more people are getting involved in the political process and I don’t think there will be any genocide and I don’t jerry was saying that at all.

Rwanda was genocide and tribal warfare, this is nothing like that hysteria aside.

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:37 pm 25. Shochu John:

Let me add one more thing, the goal right now seems to be to train the Iraqi forces and then leave them to it. Let’s say, best case scenario, we accomplish training them to our satisfaction. Then, we leave. Now, at this point, does anyone have a doubt that there will be a bloody and protracted conflict between the Sunni insurgence and the Shiite/Kurdish security forces?

So, what did we accomplish by staying until that point if the result is essentially the same?

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:37 pm 26. wingnutsrus:

We would need a draft to really take on Syria. But why stop there? I think we should level Iran too!

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:39 pm 27. Terrye:

The military is too picky for a draft.

The days of cannon fodder are over.

And our military is a lot bigger than 150,000.

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:44 pm 28. dougf:

Our forces are getting stretched thin and if we really want to win the war we should do whatever it takes, right?–wingnutsrus

Grow up. All you ‘people’ seem to care about is some petty little form of intellectual masturbation wherein you posit these clueless statements just to amuse yourself for a nanosecond. Clearly you don’t care at all what happens in Iraq, nor do you believe that there will be any consequences to DEFEAT. I don’t believe you even think about the issue.

Either you don’t bother to read up on the draft question, or you simply don’t give a rat’s a** about the legitimacy of your statements, but the military does not want a draft.

And this is supposed to be the ‘loyal opposition ‘which is necessary in order to keep the system from running amok. I don’t want to jump to unfortunate conclusions but I fear the system is not working as well as it might.

Some things are not political . They just aren’t.

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:46 pm 29. wingnutsrus:

Terrye

what do you mean by “our military is a lot bigger than 150,000?” Sorry I don’t get the reference …

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:46 pm 30. Shochu John:

Terrye,

You’re missing the point. The point is not that Saddam wasn’t brutal. He was. The thing about having a monopoly on power is that you can successfully rule by fear, and the fear people have of you keeps them from trying anything. Saddam hadn’t HAD to kill a large amount of people in well over a decade because nobody dared challenge him. Now, that’s no way to run a govenment ideally, but what I would ask is it it actually worse than an active civil conflict that pits millions of people against millions more? The Shi’ite government has shown remarkable restraint, no doubt, in not retailiating, but that restraint only goes so far. Now, it is beginning to fracture, and this is merely a symptom. Now I ask you, as to the political process, what part of having a consitution they hate passed over their heads despite huge turnouts will inspire Sunnis to stop fignhting and put all their trust into politics? Apparently nothing, because October was the 4th bloodiest month sicne the conflict began. Your optimism is inspiring, but sadly, unfounded.

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:47 pm 31. wingnutsrus:

dougf

whatever it takes, dude. All I’m saying is why are we holding back? I am advocating a draft cause I think we need to really do whatever it takes to win this war!

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:48 pm 32. Paul:

“True, 2,000 deaths is a relatively low number compared to US conflicts in the past, but at this point, in a 2+ year guerilla war, each soldier we send over does not aid our cause in the WOT — he just provides another target for our enemies.”

That’s just your opinion. You offer at as gospel, but few here think there’s any merit to it.

Each soldier who makes the ultimate sacrifice increases the urgency with which we must endeavor to prevail, thereby not rendering those sacrifices meaningless. Building a free and prosperous Iraqi state will do more to win the WOT than any other course of action open to us at this point. It will provide a template for non-dysfunctional ME societies. That, is the key to bringing the region into the sphere of prosperous and peaceful nations, which is the formula for depriving the terrorists of the endless supply of enraged, violent, and nihlistic young men that form the recruiting base for the Islamists.

“When they have the election in December for a new parliament, I think they should let the Iraqis vote in a referendum: Do you want US soldiers to stick around?

When the vote comes out 95% NO, we pack it up and get to work on whatever the hell Plan B is.”

There have been plenty of polls suggesting the majority of Iraqis want us to leave only when there will be security without us, and not before.

Each time innocent Iraqis are slaughtered at the hands of Baathist insurgents and AQ terrorists they turn the Iraqi people against them. At this point the majority of Iraqis know who the real bad guys are, and it ain’t us. To bad the left doesn’t get this, though it’s understandable that after years of a default blame America first mentality and the DeMSM’s relentless campaign to paint a picture of American atrocities, duplicities, and general incompetence in the face of a brave and determined resistance in Iraq, that they believe their own lies.

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:50 pm 33. Terrye:

Schochu:

Unlike you I am not psychic but I don’t know that the only possible future is a conflict.

And I think it is arrogant of you to assume that you can tell the future and judge an entire people as if they were some anthropolical experiment.

But if that is so, why not shut down the UN? let the poor starve? let the folks with AIDs just die and get it over with? ….after all there is no hope.

BTW they said the same thing about the United States once upon a time.

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:51 pm 34. Terrye:

that should be anthropological experiment.

preview is for the faint of heart.

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:55 pm 35. dougf:

All I’m saying is why are we holding back? I am advocating a draft cause I think we need to really do whatever it takes to win this war!–wingnutsrus

I seriously doubt that you meant this draft bit as anything other than a ‘hook’, but since it is bad form to ascribe motivations , I will merely say that it is my belief that you are incorrect in this assertion, and leave it at that.

Nov 17, 2005 - 5:56 pm 36. Shochu John:

Well Terrye,

First of all, I’m not psychic and I don’t believe I am being arrogant. I am merely acknowledging the reality of the situation. I find it fascinating that analyzing the social, poltical, and military situation of the new Iraq in rational terms is viewed as arrogance, wheras supporting the pure application of military force with nothing but high minded ideals and flowery words to guide you is not. Not every world problem is hopeless, and I cannot see how you are in any way able to construe my comments here as saying that. Also, if you want to compare Iraq to the United States, let me say that the United States had a minority ethnic group basically exterminated, another enslaved, and then had a bloody civil war about it. Are you asserting that Iraq has these things to look forward to before peace finally reigns in one or two hundred yeas?

Nov 17, 2005 - 6:07 pm 37. wingnutsrus:

okay dougf

Yes, you are right. I am not sincere about the draft part. But I am honestly fascinated by the opinions here. You know what, “people” like me opposed this war from the beginning. We knew there were no WMD, we knew it was a stupid idea. “Folks” like you derided us then and you deride us now but guess what? We were right. We were right. You were wrong. And you know what? we do think about defeat. We knew this war was impossible to win from the beginning. Am I happy about that? No. It is a disaster for America. You are right about that. You may think that “people” who disagree with your opinion hate America and give comfort to the enemy (insert neocon talking point here) but I for one care deeply about this country and the wrongheaded mistake that these f%$kwads have created for us.

To me the fact that you talk about winning the war at all costs and don’t advocate a draft smacks of hypocricy. Your argument that “the military doesn’t want a draft” is a way to let yourself off the hook for the fact that you support a war that is okay for some people to fight in but not others. Have you thought about that for a “nanosecond’? I won’t “ascribe motivations” either but I do wonder if you, like Dick Cheney have “other priorities” in this WOT.

Nov 17, 2005 - 6:11 pm 38. dougf:

Okay dougf.Yes,you are right.–wingnutsrus

There you see what happens when you actually think about these issues instead of just wandering around in some ‘progressive’ funk,and wishing the world was just more ‘kumbaya’.

I am proud of you sir. It takes a big man to admit his errors. I just knew we could come to a synthesis here.

Nov 17, 2005 - 6:24 pm 39. Terrye:

Schochu:

The United States had a real Civil War that costs 600,000 men their lives in four years and left a generation bitter and impoverished not to mention the fate of black Americans hanging in the balance. And how long was it before they were really free?

Go read the Gettysburg Address..whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure….

October was also the month of an election which seems to bring violence with it and if I remember correctly the military launched an assault as well.

But even then we are not talking about the kind of casualties that we would be seeing in an all out civil war or insurrection.

There have been about 1600 Americans killed in battle, another 450 or so have died of other causes.

That is 1600 Americans in 2 and a half years in a country of 25 million people.

The numbers of civilians killed are awful, but they still pale in comparison to the numbers of people who died in Iraq under his regime every damn year.

I am not saying that the news of people being abused in a detention is no big deal, but it needs to be kept in perspective.

I remember when AbuGhraib became public and all of a sudden it was not a dozen soldiers on the night shift, no siree it was the entire military and every single detainee.

The very fact that the issue is being investigated as a crime makes it plain that this is not business as usual.

And there will be things like this happen, and some parts of the country will be worse than others.

But you know what? Right now I have as much faith in Iraq forming a government as I do in France getting things under control.

Nov 17, 2005 - 6:25 pm 40. Mark Poling:

Yes, you are right. I am not sincere about the draft part. But I am honestly fascinated by the opinions here. You know what, “people” like me opposed this war from the beginning. We knew there were no WMD, we knew it was a stupid idea.

Based on what evidence? The fact that it was a Republican making the claims? Was it just as obvious when the Clinton Administration was saying the same thing, but didn’t have the cojones to do anything about it?

Nov 17, 2005 - 7:50 pm 41. Paul:

“okay dougf

Yes, you are right. I am not sincere about the draft part. But I am honestly fascinated by the opinions here. You know what, “people” like me opposed this war from the beginning. We knew there were no WMD, we knew it was a stupid idea.”

Well you’re the only ones that didn’t think he had WMD, and that includes the Democrats, The French, Russians, UN, etc. Whether he had actual stockpiles is immaterial (he had months to dispose of them if he did). It is common knowledge that he was maneuvering to end the sanctions with his Oil For Food bribes, and with sanctions lifted and America steaming home with it’s tail between his legs he would have been free to pursue his WMD program with impunity. Anyone who doesn’t believe he would do so is a fool. And guess what? A.Q. Khan would have still been in business and ready to supply Saddam with the means to procure nukes that much easier. You people NEVER think about the fact that Khan is out of business and Libya VOLUNTARILY gave up it’s surprisingly advanced nuke program as a result of seeing Saddam yanked out of his spiderhole. These are major achievements in the quest to keep nukes out of the hands of terrorists and rogue states, and they are solely the result of OIF.

“Folks” like you derided us then and you deride us now but guess what? We were right. We were right. You were wrong. And you know what? we do think about defeat. We knew this war was impossible to win from the beginning.”

You talk like the war is already lost, I guess because in your echo chamber that’s the CW. But the military in Iraq not only don’t think it’s lost but they are increasingly optimistic that the tide has turned and that the insurgency is doomed to fail. Read Michael Yon, The Fourth Rail, or The Belmont Club for some excellent analysis by people in a better position to know what’s really going on there than some lefty pundit with a vested interest in an American defeat, or MSM journalists (also lefties) in a hotel in the Green Zone.

ÔøΩAm I happy about that? No. It is a disaster for America. You are right about that. You may think that “people” who disagree with your opinion hate America and give comfort to the enemy (insert neocon talking point here) but I for one care deeply about this country and the wrongheaded mistake that these f%$kwads have created for us.

To me the fact that you talk about winning the war at all costs and don’t advocate a draft smacks of hypocricy. Your argument that “the military doesn’t want a draft” is a way to let yourself off the hook for the fact that you support a war that is okay for some people to fight in but not others. Have you thought about that for a “nanosecond’? I won’t “ascribe motivations” either but I do wonder if you, like Dick Cheney have “other priorities” in this WOT.”

What a crock. The military is volunteer for a reason. You won’t find the same level of dedication and professionalism from draftees, and at this point there is no need for a draft. Anyone can see it’s just a cynical ploy to try to turn people against the government and the military. It’s a cheap, shitty tactic and it’s indicative of the level the left will sink too.

You people and your chickenhawk talking points are revolting. You imply that the only people who can legitimately support the war must actually enlist and fight, whereas any whining asshole can criticize the war and demoralize our troops with total impunity from the comfort of his home, the security and prosperity of which was bought and paid for by the blood of American soldiers who believe in America and believe in their mission, just like the MEN and WOMEN fighting in Iraq. It’s no surprise that the troops in Iraq overwhelmingly support the President and OIF. They are also overwhelmingly disgusted and angered by you “folks” and your defeat America talking points.

Nov 17, 2005 - 8:15 pm 42. jerry:

Shochu:

Who said anything about Genocide. If you look at how the Serbs “ethnically cleansed” areas they did not kill everybody in sight. They generally killed men of military age. The purpose of the killing was to drive the vast majority of Muslims/Croats out of an area. Despite claims of mass killing in Kosovo the final number was between 3-5k from all sources. The Serbs just kicked them out.

I admit to being bloody minded here but the reality of the situation is that the Sunnis, who believe by the way that they are the majority, will never except their position in a new Iraq. Furthermore, they have no resoures as the Oil is in Kurdistan and Southern Iraq. So what is the new Iraqi government to do? The irony is that US forces actually limit the threat to the Sunnis because we will not tolerate the kind of tribal warfare that happens in Arab countries. We should be very frank about this with the Sunni leadership. They should be told that whether they like it or not their very survival depends on them ending the insurgency and joining in the new Iraq. If US forces leave before the insurgency ends then the likely result is the destruction of the Sunni community in Iraq. Either they get with program or find a new home.

What would you have the Kurds and Shiites do if the Sunnis won’t quit? Turn the government back over to the Baathist so there won’t be blood bath.

The US does not have it’s hand clean when comes to the forced resettlement of potentially troublesome populatons. After WWII we either looked the other way or cooperated with the Soviet Union in the forced resettlement of German population from the rebordered Europe. During the Balkan Wars of the 1990’s we allowed the Croats to ethnically cleanse the Kraina of 250000 Serbs. We had hoped that this large movement of peoples would destablize Milosevic. So I don’t want to here this BS about we don’t condone ethinic cleansing.

Note on casualties: I am getting a little put off by this false horror at the high levels of KIA in Iraq. I think this insults ever WWII veteran. During WWII we often had an Iraq’s worth of casualties in hours/days not three years. Somehow, I get the impression that modern Americans think that WWII vets were autonomatons marching happily off to war just wanting to die like so many Jihadis in search of 72 virgins. WWII vets were no more eager to fight then today’s soldiers. They are the same desperate men seeing and inflicting horror on other deperate men just fighting for survival. Sure they understood the cause but that got quickly forgotten when they went into battle and they saw death come by bushel basket.

Note to wingnutrus: The fact is the you lefties have never fought for America in any of its modern wars. In WWII the left fought for Stalin and the USSR not the United States. The left agitated against US involvement in the War from its beginning until Hitler invaded the USSR and would have withdrawn its support if Stalin had concluded a seperate peace then the left with withdrawn from the War. Back then the Left was strictly the Communist Party and it’s fellow travelers. The left took over the Democratic Party in the 1970s. It has become the party of treason as it was in 1860. The last nominee John Kerry has supported tyranny over freedom his entire political career. He supported the Communists in Vietnam and Cambodia. He supported the Communists in Central America and the Soviet Union in the 1980s. He supported Saddam Hussein’s seizure of Kuwait in 1990. Today he supports the terrorists and Baathists in Iraq. That is today’s Democratic Party.

Nov 17, 2005 - 8:18 pm 43. Godzilla:

The Sunnis need to wake up and smell the coffee. Their only future is with a democratic Iraq. A civil war would pinch the Sunnis in, with Iran’s Shiite ayatollahs flanking on the east. There is going to be some major bloodshed there if the Sunnis don’t get serious about participating in the burgeoning Iraqi government. The Sunnis would be crushed in a civil war.

Nov 17, 2005 - 8:59 pm 44. Steven Mitchell:

Actually, I see Murtha’s comments as a sign that we about to fully win in Iraq–or at least the Dems in government see it that way. The December election is not the end, but it is the beginning of the end.

The big call for troop withdrawals now has nothing to do with the stated motives and everything to do with the Democrat perception that the troops will begin coming home soon. They want to jump on the bandwagon early so that they can scream and hollar about how Bush didn’t bring them home “fast enough” or didn’t bring enough of them home by — insert constantly moving goal post here –.

The Dems really do believe that the American people are dumb enough to buy that logic, even after all their posturing. And given 59 million votes from Kerry, they believe that with some evidence.

But this is the same as any other election in a democracy–low turnout, low interest in issues is a direct reflection of how *well* things are going–shrill MSM and latest influx of trolls from OSM launch, notwithstanding.

Nov 17, 2005 - 9:12 pm 45. Skookumchuk:

Steven Mitchell:

Very true. I might add that tactically the MSM’s massive antiwar push has materialized for another reason; there is the fact of Saddam’s upcoming trial, undoubtedly featuring an endless recitation of sadistic barbarities. The trial will get attention, despite the best efforts of the MSM to ignore the proceedings and should serve to illustrate how far things have progressed since the invasion. All the more reason for the MSM to bang the defeatist drum even more loudly than usual.

Nov 17, 2005 - 9:51 pm 46. Rick Ballard:

Steven,

You have it precisely correct. The Copperheads are sprinting for a place at the front of the parade so that they can claim that they “forced” a planned drawdown. We’ll pull out 50,000 or so prior to the election next November and they’ll thump their chests and proudly announce that it was their cowardice that drove the administration to do what it had announced that it would do two years ago.

I believe that the Sunni’s are going to take very heavy losses this spring. They won’t listen to advice and the Iraqi government isn’t going to tolerate their terrorist behavior. I’m not sure that we will be reading much about it because it’s going to be Iraqi forces doing the cleanup and Western journos are still going to be at the hotel bar in the Green Zone when it happens.

It will be interesting to see how Dem defeatism and sedition does at the polls in November. Historically it has not proven to be a smart move.

Nov 17, 2005 - 9:52 pm 47. Paul:

Rick,

“It will be interesting to see how Dem defeatism and sedition does at the polls in November. Historically it has not proven to be a smart move.”

Yeah, but what else do they got?

Nov 17, 2005 - 10:06 pm 48. kioman:

Is he seriously suggesting the United States SURRENDER?

Wow.

Nov 17, 2005 - 10:22 pm 49. Kevin P:

Roger:

The phoney call for a draft is the prime example of the intellectual dishonesty and the political gamesmanship of the anti-war left. They tried it in the 2004 election when the Dems proposed a draft and then sent out scare e-mails to college students saying “Vote for Kerry or the draft will come back.” They accuse President Bush of governing by fear but when they wanted votes they had no problem proposing the draft and then tried to pin it on Bush.

Everything is Vietnam and that is the only prism that they view the world through. America can never accomplish anything, tyrants only have to be brutal enough and they will hide in the bunker and pretend that if we stay behind our borders the thugs of the world will leave us alone.

Every election in Iraq has shown an increase in participation by the voters. In a area that was ruled by the most un-democratic regimes in the world the first spark of Democracy has been kindled and they want to blow it out. They want to go back to the 65 year old policy of stability for oil that both Democratic and Republican administrations had practiced for decades. When we cut and run and the “insurgents” take over and restablish a Saddam like Bathist thugocracy or a Iran style mullahocracy they will crow “See, we were right.” Then after the dust has settled they will go back to their candle light vigils that protest the lack of civil rights in the middle east and accuse America of backing dictatorships for oil. They will abandon the Iraq population and they will tell them if they try to develop their own democracy they will chear them on but if the new strongman of Iraq crushes them like Saddam did to every hint of rebellion from the people all they will do is write protest letters and invite scholars from Iraq to visit the states and moan about the destruction. And they will cry out in outrage “this can not be allowed to happen.” Then the U.N. will write toothless resolutions that the new regime will use to wipe their butts and laugh at the impotence of the west. They will protest and write stirring plays, but they will not lift a finger to bring about change. They will just talk about it. They will be very sorry. And they will turn their backs and go on with their lives with the smug superiority of being “right” as democracy dies in the Middle East for another 60 to a 100 years.

Nov 17, 2005 - 10:27 pm 50. Rick Ballard:

Paul,

With Soros’ hand on the purse?

Nothing.

Nov 17, 2005 - 10:28 pm 51. Shochu John:

Terrye,

Firstly, let me say how much I appreciate our little exchange here. It is refreshing to be able to discuss an issue without invective and in a civilized manner. Unfortunately, this all too rarely the case in today’s bipolar political scene in which partisan polemic has supplanted rational discussion.

Now, to address your points. Your comments about the American civil war add to my original point. That is, the United States had a long and bloody history before it became anything resembling a free society. Yet you seem to consider my pessimism with respect to a civil conflict Iraq to be giving up on the Iraqi people. Far from it, nations have internal civil conflict, genocides, and all manner of other atrocities. When I predict that to be the case in Iraq, it does not mean the nation is doomed for ever and ever, it just means rough waters ahead.

Secondly, it is incorrect to believe that Saddam had been underaking mass killings within the last decade. Certianly, during the 80’s, with the Iran/Iraq war etc., and then the Shi’ite uprising after the Gulf War, body counts were high. Recently, however, not so much. I suggest you review Human Rights Watch’s reports on Iraq for the last few years of Saddam. The Iraqi government was averaging about 60 executions per year, which is certainly more than we would expect from a civilized government, but isn’t that many in a country of 21 million people, especially when compared against the current death toll.

Also, as to France, France has race problems that they are going to have to deal with, but that is another dicussion for another day.

Finally, with respect to your points on body count, see my reply below.

Jerry,

Let me first remark with respect to your comment on casualty rates by saying that this is counterinsurgent warfare, so comparing the casualty rates against conflicts in which major armies fought fixed piece battles, captured and held territory and all that is not helpful to understanding the relative severity of the problem.

Now, on to the squabbling Iraqis. Firstly, I thik you are not porperly understanding the Sunni thinking on this. If we leave and leave the Iraqis to it, the Sunnis think they’ll win, which I am not sure is that unrealistic. They are far outnumbered, but at the same time, their people have all the know-how. They have most of the old Iraqi military brass, who, in addition to their straegic expertise, know where all the munitions are hidden. They’ve been conducting operations nonstop since the occupation began, so they already have their post-Saddam infrastructure in place and well tested. On balance, I think the numbers still have the Sunnis losing, but not quickly. Also, this assumes that Iraq’s neighbors stay out of the fun. Iran has been backing SCIRI forever, and they’re sure not going to stop when the shooting starts. At the same time, the mostly Sunni Arab world not going to stand by while Iranian-backed militas “ethically clense” their breatheren. Once the neighbors get involved, it’s just a free for all, and really, who knows how it will all shake down.

So, to get back to your original point about how we should stay and train the Shi’ite/Kurdish security forces, I would ask how precisely this increases the odds of this “ethnic cleansing,” which you advocate? Furthermore, I cannot see how US troops staying in Iraq to do this additional training is going to influence the outcome of the civil war in any predictable manner full stop.

Your statement “The irony is that US forces actually limit the threat to the Sunnis because we will not tolerate the kind of tribal warfare that happens in Arab countries.” captures the main issue perfectly. As long as we’re there, there will be no outright civil war, but we don’t plan on staying there forever, so what can we realistically accomplish now that will best minimize the damage when we finally do leave them to it?

I, for one, haven’t a clue, and i don’t think anyone else does either. If we don’t know what we can realistically hope to accomplish, why stay?

Nov 17, 2005 - 10:48 pm 52. jedrury:

Accepted wisdom has now reached concrete mode. The finished product: the war is lost, the troops must come home before noon tomorrow.

The press is “shocked” to find fraud in procurement of the war; doubly “shocked” that special prisons exist to deal with the really bad guys, and, “get this, hold the presses;” John Murtha, Vietnam war vet, wants us to bring the troops home. And tomorrow or next week, Chuck Hagel, potential 2008 presidential candidate/ Viet vet, believes that the war should be brought to a close.

So?

And,

hamburger is still on sale at the Safeway.

The press needs these “heros,” shockers, nuances embellishments, hypes, half truths to sustain a dying industry, a flagging viewership, a fleeting readership and a Northeast hatred of the president.

Nov 17, 2005 - 11:16 pm 53. Jim Rockford:

Democrats would win, handily, if Al Qaeda were defeated soundly in Iraq and Zarqawi at least killed. Think Winston Churchill in 1945 or GWB in 1992.

However, the Party seems to ignore that (and it’s obvious strengths domestically on focusing on job growth and wage raises) in favor of trying to repeat Vietnam, right down to defeat on the battlefield.

The BEST case if we did what Murtha demands and withdraw in six months is a bin Laden controlled Center of Iraq, Kurds not declaring independence, and Iran controlling the South. That’s pretty unlikely. What we’d get is the WORST case which would be a regional war involving Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Turkey all fighting over the corpse of Iraq (without US troops there) and bin Laden overthrowing the house of Saud, Jordan, and Assad to form the basis of the new Caliphate (Saudi, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan). Likely joined by a coup in Pakistan and a nuclear bin Laden.

Yes it is terrible that we lost 2,000 troops. Bin Laden told the world we’d cut and run with trivial losses. For a while we proved him wrong. Cutting and running now will just insure we lose a city or three. Followed by a terrible strategic nuclear response.

Pakistan’s Musharreff hangs by a thread (he’s survived FIVE assassination attempts we know of since 9/11). Iran is threatening to nuke US as well as wipe Israel off the map. The House of Saud is creaky and shot through with bin Laden sympathizers. The ONE asset we have is troops on the ground in Iraq killing jihadis at an astounding rate and showing we are dangerous and unwise to attack. Run away now and we show we are weak (most of the countries in the region kill 2,000 in a few months in their secret prisons) and easy victims.

A strategy more deliberately imagined to get the US attacked with nuclear weapons could not be imagined. We have NO OTHER CHOICE but to fight and win. Giving up now is like giving up after Midway. The stakes are that high (and we ARE winning).

I offer a winning strategy for Dems at no charge:

“We are the party of effective big government. We will increase the size of the volunteer military by three (reversing Clinton’s cuts of 40% and then some). We will have a massively bigger Air Force, Navy, Army and Marine Corps, with the best new weapons we can buy. All of this will be American Made. We will follow the enemy wherever, even into Syria and Iran, and destroy any threats to us including Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Then we will mostly go home, with the promise to come back any time we are attacked again. After we’ve won we will fix productivity and other issues so we grow our domestic economy into the best and best paying in the world.”

Call this the win and move to domestic issues (with a lot of domestic pump priming on military spending as well). Or the Reaganite strategy. It’s so obvious and yet so far away.

Wingnuts: a draft is not needed. Spending the money on more volunteer soldiers and less on say, various pork is what’s needed. The US military has been structured since the 80’s for no draft; anyone who’s done any research instead of reciting the usual Leftist cant would know that. As well as knowing that very few minorities have died in Iraq; most of the casualties have been white middle class. Among other things the modern military requires higher IQ than the general population due to the extreme level of skill and specialization (this is particularly true for combat troops who are highly skilled and trained). A draft would ruin that model by clogging the system with people too dumb to be soldiers.

Nov 18, 2005 - 12:18 am 54. exguru:

Murtha loves the military and just can’t stand it to watch them getting picked off one by one without much chance to fight back. Nobody likes that. But most of us aren’t as stupid as Murtha.

He has said all along we should either get out or turn the place into an oil slick. That would be a reasonable proposition except that our long run interest lies in draining the swamp instead. If we can change the Middle East we can eliminate the breeding grounds of 9-11 killers, and be safe from their madness 20, 30 & 50 years down the road. This requires playing ball with some awful people, but killing as few of them as possible. It means having amnesties, and trying to neutralize their hatred of each other. It is not a normal task, historically, for our armed forces. It is not a sure “winner” like turning the place into an oil slick. So lots of old soldier like Murtha don’t like it a damn bit. There is the added chance we will continue swamp draining and fail, in which case those who supported cut-and-run first will do best in the next elections.

George W. Bush has decided to go after the root cause of the problem. He had little choice. If even Bill Clinton had been president when New York and Washington were bombed, the U.S. probably would have gone after the root of the problem. What good would it do to save a few soldiers in Iraq, only to have the enemy lob anthrax at us in Baltimore and Los Angeles? Three days ago 18 al-Quaeda were arrested in Sydney, Australia, in a plot to plow up its nuclear power plant… Some may come here with that crap anyway, but fewer are going to come if we basically change the Middle East.

Nov 18, 2005 - 12:37 am 55. zen_less:

Reading all these posts, I now get a sense of what the discussions must have been like in the Berlin bunker in about May, 1945.

NOTE to hysterical mouth-frothers: I am NOT saying you are Nazis.

Nov 18, 2005 - 2:08 am 56. syn:

The pacifist movement is going to get us all killed. As pacified western civilization ages along side the counter-evolutionary movement of aborting off-spring, the Islamists are breeding youthful bloodlust Caliphate warriors.

Eurabia has already fallen and one day the over- populated pacified American geriatric crowd may end up facing the consequences of cowardness each time they go to the beach in a bikini to exhibit their botoxed/siliconed bods only to be confronted by offended Islamists who will simply hack the pacifists heads off rather than tolerate such a liberal lifestyle.

But ‘it’s all about peace, love and understan….(see talking dhimmi head fall to ground)

I’m not questioning the pacifists patriotism, I’m questioning why they wish to see us all dead?

Nov 18, 2005 - 3:38 am 57. syn:

Actually, I am really questioning why the pacifists and the Democrats have abandonned Western Liberalism?

Nov 18, 2005 - 3:40 am 58. Ed Poinsett:

Why a call for a draft? The only reason to reinstate the draft would be to increase the number of troops that can’t be gotten from the normal enlistment process.

No point in calling for a draft unless the Congress decides that we need to significantly increase the size of the military or we needed some specific skill sets not generally available.

Do we need a bigger Navy? A larger Air Force? All the services are operating at or near their maximum authorized limits. There is much resistance to the 130,000 troops currently in Iraq. What would you do with more troops? We want to decrease the size of the footprint in Iraq and turn more over to the Iraqis themselves.

Historically it takes about 10-12 people to support each grunt in the field. (Grunt, to me, is a term of immense respect) That seems to be about right in Iraq. On any given day for the last two years, less than 5,000 troops have actually been engaged in any fighting and on many days a lot fewer than that are deployed. Right now, there are about 2500 troops involved in Operation Steel Curtain. If you have a 10 to 1 support structure, we have about 25,000 in that mission. Many of those aren’t even Iraq. I would agree that some further restructuring to increase the active duty troops and reduce the call on the reserves might be appropriate, but you don’t need a draft to accomplish that.

Nov 18, 2005 - 4:21 am 59. Robert Crawford:

We knew there were no WMD

Pure BS. There were plenty of leftist traitors giving warnings of hundreds of thousands US dead from Saddam’s gas shells, and the rest were saying we should give Saddam another few years to play hide-and-seek with UN bribe magnets inspectors.

Does the left really think our memories are this short? That we don’t remember what they said in the past? For example, one of the frequent whines is that Iraq took troops away from Afghanistan — but many of the people saying that ALSO opposed going into Afghanistan. They won’t point out that little fact, because it makes their argument look like the lie it is, but anyone with a memory can recall — for example — Michael Moore opposing going into Afghanistan.

The reality is the anti-war movement started organizing the moment the second plane hit the WTC. They haven’t just opposed removing Saddam; they’ve opposed ANY attempt by the US to defend itself. That the Democrats have aligned themselves with that movement is disgusting, but sadly not all that surprising.

Nov 18, 2005 - 4:28 am 60. Ray:

The disease control center in Atlanta missed this one entirely. Thinking that the avian flue was imminent, they failed to identify the much more virulent “cheese eating surrender monkey virus”. Initially found spreading in France, this new virus is popping up in various U.S. locations. Symtoms include a mind bending hatred of Bush, a disregard for America’s vital interests and an attitude of scorn for the young men and women in uniform. The disease is associated with erratic behavior causing the afflicted to suddenly reverse direction while walking or driving and shouting obcenities at old friends. Some seem to have acquired an aversion to heights and have been observed moving out of high rise buildings. Although there is no known cure, those that have been exposed and resisted the virus are known to have large cajones.

Nov 18, 2005 - 6:40 am 61. dougf:

NOTE to hysterical mouth-frothers: I am NOT saying you are Nazis–zen-less

Of course you are. Or rather you are saying that we are delusional,meglomaniac,out-of-touch fanatics with an unholy world view and an immoral agenda, who cannot see the forest for the trees.

Frankly as those who read my posts know, I worship the quicksand the ‘progressive’ opposition walks on, and could not care less in what lack of regard you hold me and others who share my contempt for jihaidis-r-us.

Just a hint though— If you really do come across some real Nazis(and not the comic book American variety), I wouldn’t say anything to them were I you. You appear to lack historical perspective on major issues, and therefore very likely totally misunderstand the rather un-nuanced approach these types take to ‘debate’.

Just FYI.

Nov 18, 2005 - 6:53 am 62. timmah!:

Lie: “…each soldier we send over does not aid our cause in the WOT — he just provides another target for our enemies.”

Unless the commenter meant “Target that shoots back as well as any in the world.”

Truth: http://michaelyon.blogspot.com

Nov 18, 2005 - 7:34 am 63. Syl:

Shochu John at 5:47 gives us his bottom line, folks.

And that is that tyrants are preferable because they can keep control.

Words fail me.

Nov 18, 2005 - 8:03 am 64. Bostonian:

Syl,

That seems to be how the Left views the world these days: a brutal dictator is better than civil war. Arbitrary death from your own government is better than death as a result of fighting for your own liberty.

It never occurs to any of these guys that the oppressed masses of the world might resent them, just a bit, for that preference.

It’s a truly astonishing failure of imagination.

Nov 18, 2005 - 8:30 am 65. Sandy P:

–We would need a draft to really take on Syria. But why stop there? I think we should level Iran too!–

If Peanut brain had ordered the Marines to stand their ground and made sure they had an abundance of ammo to back the order up, we wouldn’t be here today.

Parts of Iran will also be flattened.

The world will be at peace when the world is under Islam is not an option.

Nov 18, 2005 - 10:40 am 66. Sandy P:

–That seems to be how the Left views the world these days: a brutal dictator is better than civil war.–

Stability – we must have stability!

That’s why the world doesn’t like US, our voting instability makes us the most stable in the world.

Nov 18, 2005 - 10:41 am 67. Sandy P:

Besides, we can’t have a draft – urban blue state kids are too stupid to have in the Armed Forces.

Nov 18, 2005 - 10:44 am 68. naugiedoggie:

Each soldier who makes the ultimate sacrifice increases the urgency with which we must endeavor to prevail, thereby not rendering those sacrifices meaningless.

Well, then, why aren’t you over there? There’s been a lot of sneering on the pro-war side about the “cowards” who are anti-war. Let’s look at some facts: the GAO has just reported that:

” … the Army, National Guard and Marines signed up as few as a third of the Special Forces soldiers, intelligence specialists and translators” that are needed

both the Army and the Marines fell short by 20% of their recruitment target for “roadside bomb defusers.”

the Army Reserve failed to recruit 500 of the 1500 intelligence analysts it needs

the armed services as a group failed to fully staff 41% of their specialty staff

With all this yammering about how it’s cowardly to advocate saving our soldiers’ lives, one has to ask the obvious question: why aren’t the war supporters making the sacrifice — even the “ultimate sacrifice” — to win it?

Well, it could be that they are cowards who will not fight for what they believe in. It’s so much easier to sit in the comfort of home or office (I suspect a lot of this yammering is being done on company time) and type in a text box than it is to put on the uniform and stand up for what you believe in. Now, there’s a concept not lived up to by the chickenhawk pro-war bloggers and their fellow-travelling comment mavens.

I do recognize that you are following in the footsteps of the Coward-in-Chief, who refused to serve; and of the Second-Coward-in-Chief, who refused to serve five times — yes, like them, you all have “other priorities” and service in the cause in which you claim to believe would be inconvenient.

Excuse me for saying so, but compared to this bunch of dirt scratchers, John Murtha has ‘nads big as grapefruits, and you gerkhins couldn’t muster a threat more dangerous than “Shet up er i’ll blog ya ta death”. Here’s a link to the kind of help you all need.

mp

Nov 18, 2005 - 1:05 pm 69. Kevin P:

Roger:

Go back to the editorials and fund raising speeches of the pre-Bush era from the leaders on the left and you will find one consistent strain regarding Middle East Foreign Policy. There refrain would come down to blasting America for allowing undemocratic regimes to flourish in the ME in exchange for stable oil resources. The civil rights violations were correctly highlighted and numerous op-eds were written to shame the Republican and Democratic Administrations that continued the decades old policy of stability for oil.And there were ominous warnings of the reckoning that was coming down the road. There would be an occasional pious lecture to one ME leader to clean up their act but there was always the understanding that in reality nothing would be done. And nothing was done. Nothing. Many noble words were spoken. Concrete actions were feeble and or shortlived. Before the year 2000 the middle east was one of the most undemocratic areas in the world and even the current President was going to continue that practice. Nation building was derided by candidate Bush.

9-11 happened and Bush woke up. And please, I know that Saddam had no command and control of the 9-11 attacks so don’t get your panties in a wad. President Bush realized that the Buchannon isolationist stability for oil, Arabs are not capable of democracy racism, Threats but no actual political change in the region American policy of the last half century would have to change. And those who cried the loudest for civil rights in the region are now saying we need to get out and if a mullahocracy or a thugocracy results that is the best thing for the region. Stability for oil. Pat Buchannon foreign policy 101.

“oh but we want change, we just want it done through the U.N., look at the Balkans.” I just talked to my brother in Kosovo and Bill Clinton is the most beloved man in Kosovo(at least among the majority Albanian population). Do they love him becuse of his dedcation to the U.N.? Hell no. They hate the U.N. They love him becuse he bombed the crap out of the serbs and didn’t worry about the damage. They hate the U.N. becuse when the U.N. was protecting them they knew they were going to be BBQ material for Milosevich and his cronies.

The N.Y. Times just gave the thumbs up for staying in the Balkans. Military occupation of that country is a good thing. “Ah, but their are no casualties.” Correct. But only if we stay their. There is no political solution and the moment we pull out it will start again. The Albanians will never accept being part of greater Serbia and the Serbs will never accept an independent Kosovo. Three “final Solutions”(I am not joking, thats what they called it) have been postponed because they knew what would happen , resumption of hostilities. There is peace but there is no exit plan and continued military occupation is a given. But there is little to no economic development because their is no political solution.But this is fine for the left. “No one is dying.” Just wait. It’s coming. I am not arguing for pullout in the Balkans. I am just saying that military occupation and continued stalemate is fine as long as the U.N. is there. But both sides are crapping their pants at the idea that the U.S. might pull out and leave it to the U.N. members alone. Because they know what happens when the hated blue helmets are in charge, and they are despised by both sides of the conflict, people get killed.

Nov 18, 2005 - 1:50 pm 70. Steven Mitchell:

My, my. I’ve seen the rooster doves do that chicken hawk act before, but I think this the first time I’ve seen one froth at the mouth.

But I tell you what, ND, I’ll make you a deal. Only people with military experience get to talk about it. Heck, why stop there? Let’s just go the Starship Troopers route, with only former military allowed to vote or serve in government elected positions. I won’t like it, of course. But you’ll like it a lot less.

Moron.

Nov 18, 2005 - 2:02 pm 71. MarkD:

ND When and where did you serve? Steven Mitchell was much too polite.

Nov 18, 2005 - 2:34 pm 72. Pixy Misa:

Let’s just go the Starship Troopers route, with only former military allowed to vote or serve in government elected positions.

In the book, it wasn’t required that you had served in the military; there were other public service options mentioned (albeit very briefly).

Nov 18, 2005 - 2:48 pm 73. Shochu John:

Bostonian/Syl,

Wow, if you had told be a decade ago that the foriegn policy realists would be labelled as “Leftists” by the new promoters of dogmatic pie-in-the-sky idealism, I wouldn’t have believed you. It’s a topsy turvy world we live in. That having been said, let me answer some of these issues point by point.

Syl:

“Shochu John at 5:47 gives us his bottom line, folks.

And that is that tyrants are preferable because they can keep control.

Words fail me.”

Bostonian, on a related point:

“That seems to be how the Left views the world these days: a brutal dictator is better than civil war.”

Thank you for bringing up “the Left”, but what do they have to do with this discussion? As for dictators versus civil war, it depends on the specific situation which is preferable. In this case, to trade a situation in which there was a dictator and a relatively low body count for one in which there is a high body count and after which either another Saddam or a Shi’ite theocracy (depending on who wins), is pure foolishness, espeically when there is a high probability of dragging the whole region into the morass.

“Arbitrary death from your own government is better than death as a result of fighting for your own liberty.”

Let’s see. We have the Ba’athists who are fighting for the old order, the Allahu Akbars fighting for the virgins, the Shi’te militias fighting for control of the country and for the impsoition of religious law, and then the Kurds who are fighting for control of Kirkuk and the surrounding oil. Who is fighting for their liberty again?

“It never occurs to any of these guys that the oppressed masses of the world might resent them, just a bit, for that preference.”

There is plenty of resentment in the world from our promotion of dictatorship in various regions, but invading Iraq has failed to actually earn us goodwill frm oppressed masses in the Arab world or anywhere else and the evidence of this is overwhelming, from poll numbers to the mass protests that greet President Bush any time he leaves the United States.

“It’s a truly astonishing failure of imagination.”

It’s a truly astonishing failure of rational foriegn policy. At some point, imagination has to touch base with reality, or you get disasters.

Nov 18, 2005 - 4:12 pm 74. Bostonian:

Shochu John,

If the so-called insurgency had popular support, you’d have a big point.

But it doesn’t, and so you don’t.

The so-called insurgency is killing Iraqis who want to choose their own government. You’ve neatly identified the tribal groups, like any nice NYT reader, but that’s not all that is happening over there, by any means.

Iraqis don’t like us being there, but they are very very very glad that we removed Saddam Hussein from power. Did you realize that 9 April is a memorable day in the minds of many Iraqis?

And despite the 24/7/365 lies from the US Left and their allies, the Iraqis by and large have come to realize that we are not there to steal anything from them.

If you read milblogs or Iraqi blogs with an open mind, you’d see this.

In this particular case, the only foreign opinions that matter are the Iraqis. I could not care less what the Europeans think. As for third-world countries, I do care, but those people are not hearing or seeing the truth. They’re hearing and seeing what the international news and their own despots are telling them.

This is a war of ideas with three fronts, and you and I are not on the same side.

Nov 18, 2005 - 5:10 pm 75. Shochu John:

Ahh, Bostonian,

The insurgence DOES have popular support amongst its base, which is the Sunni Arab community. The fact that we haven’t rolled it up yet, or even made a dent in it is evidence of its support. If it were unpopular, we’d have more than enough informers to destroy it. You are correct in that a lot of Iraq, indeed the vast majoirty is ecstatic that Saddam is gone, but that is not the prevailing sentiment in the Sunni Arab comminity. Whether or not you, I, Geroge Bush or Iraq the Model bloggers think that’s a valid point of view is irreleveant to the situation on the ground.

So, then you tell me, what makes you think continuing the same policy will all of a sudden begin to work where it has failed so far in stopping the violence in Iraq?

And I will say it again, turning this into a Left-Right debate just clouds the issue. In that sense, it is like most issues.

Nov 18, 2005 - 5:24 pm 76. Bostonian:

The war is indeed a Left-Right issue, as poll after poll has shown. The Right contains some isolationists, I know, and the Left apparently contains a few supporters of the war, despite the mass defections of the last couple of years. Still the pattern is there and quite strong.

And the divide is important, very much so, because much of the Left is actively, daily working against the goals of the war in every way except for actually shooting anyone.

I refer to the drumbeat of “it’s all about oil,” “the GOP doesn’t really care about Iraqis,” “this war is immoral,” and so on, constantly impugning the *motives* of the supporters of the war.

***

As for your question, I submit that you have failed to establish your premise.

Nov 18, 2005 - 5:43 pm 77. Shochu John:

The popularity of an argument has no bearing on its validity. The fact that a Michael Moore puts forth poor arguments in support of a given position does not invalidate good arguments in support of that position. The same is true with arguments on all sides of the issue.

Also, the fact that this debate is cast in such Left/Right terms in at the national level, which I certainly do not deny, does cloud the issue because it turns it to a baseball game. You root for your team and any calls against your team is the fault of the umpire’s poor eyesight. This is no way to make decisions which impact life and death at such a large scale. I hope we can agree on this and restrict ourselves to debating the issue on its merits, and not whatever our conceptions of “The Left” or “The Right” think.

If you wish to claim that our policies have been successful in stopping the violence, perhaps you would care to explain why October, for example, was the fourth bloodiest month sicne the beginning of the conflict, keeping in mind that violence on constitutional referendum day was kept to a minimum due to the lockdown of the country. Also, November is well on its way to beating October. Check out iraqbodycount.org and add up the bodies yourself. Is this what you consider evidence of an effective strategy for reducing violence? If not, what other evidence do you have to offer?

Nov 18, 2005 - 6:16 pm 78. Luther McLeod:

“policies have been successful in stopping the violence,”

The fact that there are certain nihilist, homicidal and virgin seeking persons willing to kill themselves while murdering others has (IMHO) absolutely no bearing on the overall success or failure of what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq. We tread a narrow path, allowing freedom of movement, freedom of association, etc. This approach carries certain risks, and it is unfortunate that the Iraqi people are bearing the brunt of this policy. But, were we to do any differently, we would be castigated by the world, and the leftist/defeatist wing of our country, as we would then truly be occupiers (in their minds). This is the most humane and politically correct war that has been fought in the history of the world. And, we are winning, regardless of the naysayers, regardless of the Marxist/socialist/everyone’s right but the USA, press, academia and M. Moore’s of the world. I am just so tired of the BDS, appeasement and guilt tripping bullshit. If it is body count you are concerned with, we could quickly ramp that up to positive numbers for our side. We can do violence, if necessary.

Nov 18, 2005 - 7:17 pm 79. Sandy P:

–but invading Iraq has failed to actually earn us goodwill frm oppressed masses in the Arab world or anywhere else and the evidence of this is overwhelming, from poll numbers to the mass protests that greet President Bush any time he leaves the United States.–

If you want the world’s goodwill, then the US must become as miserable as the world.

Thus it has always been and thus will it be as long as we still believe in that archaic 18th century document/vision which has no place in the modern world.

That price is too high, I can live with being disliked.

We’re American, it’s a given.

Nov 18, 2005 - 7:43 pm 80. Sandy P:

John, you should visit Rantburg.

It would be illuminating.

Nov 18, 2005 - 10:03 pm 81. Kevin P:

Roger:

We are losing because the bodycount is up in a particular month. With that logic we would have cut and run in many of the wars we eventually won. The number of deaths per day average in the Iraq war is one of the lowest of any war that we have participated in. And copperheads are not new to this country, If Lee had turned south instead of going for broke at Gettysburg Lincoln probably would have lost the election to that military hero McClellan and he would have brokered a peace with the South and kept slavery going for decades. At least those copperheads had some of the bloodiest and deadly battles to point to as evidence that the war could not be won and battles that had casuality counts that had thousands of deaths in a weekend rather then over three years.

Every soldier that has died in this war is a human tradegy for their family. If the war is wrong then whether the count is 20 or 2,000 or50,000 makes no difference.If leaving Saddam in power was a good thing and if someone decides that the Middle east would be more stable with no democracy and the continuation of the staus qou then I guess you could say that the war was bad. But the undemocratic, tyrany riddled M.E. was the birthplace of the Islamo Fascist movement and there was almost no sign that the governments of the region had any intention of doing anything about it. The War in Iraq, with all of the mistakes, has led to the end of the Saddam regime, scared Libya into getting rid of it’s WMD’s, and I think Syria would have crushed the dissent in Lebanon if there were no ground forces stationed in Iraq.

Yes, the Middle East was more “stable” before 2000. But that beloved stability included the Taliban, Saddam and his evil progeny, a Syria that would have no problem crushing any democratic steps in their colony to the east, and a WMD armed Libya. And please don’t try to tell me that the U.N. would have negotiated these pigs into giving up their grip on power. The U.N. writes notes to dictators and asks them to change. They almost never do. Milosevic needed to be bombed into submission. The only way Saddam and his boys were going to leave the scene was by force. And the naive hope that he would not have used the billions of petro dollars that would have come his way after the embargo was lifted to fund terror groups that would be targeting America is laughable.The fact that even after he was chased out of Kuwait and had his Army humiliated he still tried to assasinate a living American President shows that revenge was his prime motivation in life and we were target number one.

Nov 18, 2005 - 11:58 pm 82. Bostonian:

Shochu John:

It’s a war. People get killed in a war, often rather randomly. You could play the same game, look at any war in history at some interim point, notice a recent fluctuation–and then, in your logic, conclude that all is lost.

Similarly, iraqbodycount (even supposing that it is honest, which I do not) is just part of the picture.

If you want to convince me that we’re losing in Iraq, you’re going to have to establish that there’s a serious, widespread breakdown of order in that country, that the average people of Iraq do not have faith that their government will be able to keep them safe (or do not want a common government).

Here are some things you could look for to support your thesis:

*Desertion rates in the new Iraqi forces

*Intermittent control of communications; periodic takeovers

*Polling to determine the citizen’s opinions

*Defection of high-ranking Iraqis to the “insurgent” side

*Evidence showing clearly that the captured or killed “insurgents” are domestic rather than foreign

*****

I never said that this war would make us safer in the short term. Nobody responsible would say such a thing. It is the long term we are focused on.

Nov 19, 2005 - 6:29 am 83. Shochu John:

Bostonian Says (with Kevin making the same point in different words):

“It’s a war. People get killed in a war, often rather randomly. You could play the same game, look at any war in history at some interim point, notice a recent fluctuation–and then, in your logic, conclude that all is lost.”

I have already made this point. This is not an nation-to-nation war with armies taking territory, etc. This is anti-insurgent warfare. THE BOTTOM LINE IN PEACE. AN INCREASE OF VIOLENCE SHOWS THAT THE WAR IS BEING LOST BECAUSE THE GOAL IS A LACK OF VIOLENCE. WE DON’T WANT ANYTHING FROM THE INSURGENTS OTEHR THAN FOR THEM TO STOP KILLING.

You see? Seems bloody obvious to me. I don’t have time right now to as many cite statitics and quotes as would like, but here are some answers to your questions nonetheless:

“If you want to convince me that we’re losing in Iraq, you’re going to have to establish that there’s a serious, widespread breakdown of order in that country, that the average people of Iraq do not have faith that their government will be able to keep them safe (or do not want a common government).”

See polling done of the Iraqis. Esepcially, see the most recent British poll (conducted at the behest of the Ministry of Defense, I may add) which states that less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security and 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation

“Here are some things you could look for to support your thesis:

*Desertion rates in the new Iraqi forces”

Remmeber when the entire police force of Mosul deserted, they just disappeared overnight?

“*Polling to determine the citizen’s opinions”

82 per cent of thos polled in the British poll are “strongly opposed” to the presence of coalition troops. 45% say it is right to attack them.

“*Defection of high-ranking Iraqis to the “insurgent” side”

The army has been purged of Ba’athists and is full of Shi’ites. You think Shi’ites are going to climb the ranks of the new army and then go join the Sunni insurgence?

“*Evidence showing clearly that the captured or killed “insurgents” are domestic rather than foreign”

Wait, you actually think that this insurgence is not an Iraqi animal? Wow, I didn’t think anybody still though that. There’s plenty of evidence to the contrary, but alas, I have an appointment I must get ready for and cannot track it all down and cite it all right now. In the meantime, I notice that you have challenged me to back up my position with factual information, but have still failed to back up yours. If this is truly a good faith discussion, I invite you do do this, and when I return tonight, I shall further bolster the points I have made here with yet more numbers and facts. If on the other had, this is a game of “You prove your position whilst I just sit back and assume mine is correct.” then I will know this is not a good faith discussion and not further waste my time on it.

Nov 19, 2005 - 7:31 am 84. Sandy P:

–WE DON’T WANT ANYTHING FROM THE INSURGENTS OTEHR THAN FOR THEM TO STOP KILLING.

No, I think I can write that most of us on this blog want Islam reformed. I want the vermin dead and we have a long, long, long way to go.

Peace – western definition or Islamic definition?

— AN INCREASE OF VIOLENCE SHOWS THAT THE WAR IS BEING LOST BECAUSE THE GOAL IS A LACK OF VIOLENCE.—

Which explains Jordan. I see 200K protested Z. I guess they don’t like it when he threatened to saw their king’s head off.

You would really be beneficial at Rantburg.

Nov 19, 2005 - 8:43 am 85. Shochu John:

Sandy,

“No, I think I can write that most of us on this blog want Islam reformed. I want the vermin dead and we have a long, long, long way to go.”

Hmm, interesting, so the goal in our continued presense in Iraq is not actually democracy or peace, but to reform Islam? I’m going to go out on a limb and venture that you are not actually a Muslim. I am going to go less far out on a limb and venture that most people who comment on this blog are not Muslims, and yet you contend that a majority here on this blog want to reform Islam, a religion you are not a part of, by occupying one country where the majority religion is Islam. In that case, perhaps you would consider a proposal to reform Catholicism by invading and occupying Mexico. It makes approximately as much sense.

“Which explains Jordan. I see 200K protested Z. I guess they don’t like it when he threatened to saw their king’s head off.”

Actually, my point explains Jordan rather well. They don’t want violence in their country for obvious reasons, and I am not sure how much of it has to do with defending their unelcted ruler and the adorable English accent with which he speaks Arabic. They simply don’t want their country turning into Iraq. They enjoy not living in fear and would like to continue to do so. As to Iraq, when there is no more violence, it can be safely said that the insurgence is over. When there is more violence, it can be safely said that the insurgence is worsening. This is the main difference between conventional and insurgent warfare that people here seem to be stubbornly ignoring. When both sides have as their goal the capture of territory, as in WWII, for example, the level of violence does not indicate who is winning. When there is a struggle in which one side is attempting to promote increased violence and chaos (insurgents) and the other is trying to stop violence and chaos (coalition forces), the amount of violence and chaos is a perfect indicator of who is winning. I fail to see why this is so difficult to understand.

Nov 19, 2005 - 11:28 am 86. PeterUK:

The call for a draft,to ostensibly,do the job properly, is just a disingenous way to bring back the mass protests.

What fuelled the Vietnam anti-war movement,as well as the Soviet Union through the Communist Party,was fear of the draft.

This more than anything became a rallying point for college kids against the War.

That is why the left want the draft.

Nov 19, 2005 - 12:03 pm 87. PeterUK:

“The insurgence DOES have popular support amongst its base, which is the Sunni Arab community.”

Which is equivalent to saying the Democrats have a base in all those who didn’t get their candidate elected to the Presidency,or control the Senate or Congress.

Nov 19, 2005 - 12:45 pm 88. Shochu John:

“Which is equivalent to saying the Democrats have a base in all those who didn’t get their candidate elected to the Presidency,or control the Senate or Congress.”

Yes, Peter, except the “Blue States” in Iraq are armed to the teeth and think they will win a civil war if they can successfully start one. You are once again swaying into the legitimacy of their gripe, when, for all practical purposes, that question is irrelevant. It exists, so how is it to be dealt with?

Nov 19, 2005 - 1:05 pm 89. PeterUK:

“When there is a struggle in which one side is attempting to promote increased violence and chaos (insurgents) and the other is trying to stop violence and chaos (coalition forces), the amount of violence and chaos is a perfect indicator of who is winning. I fail to see why this is so difficult to understand.”

It is your comprehension that is the problem,you are making your own definition then justifying your argument by it.Do you actually know anything about the subject?

Destructiveness is NOT an indicator of military success,the Wehrmacht we incredibly proficient at destructiveness,viz the invasion of the Soviet Union,they still got its arse kicked all the way back to Berlin.

Violence is not a metric of progress in guerilla warfare,it creates hatred and destroy suport

In respect to your reply,the Red States are more heavily armed.

The point concerning the Ba’thist and Sunni military expertise is intersting,they have a long and glorious history of military failure,their technique are more in the way of gangsterism.

What is this strange fixation leftists have with the Sunnis,that they keep brandishing them aloft like a talisman?

Nov 19, 2005 - 1:31 pm 90. Sandy P:

Democracy is a part of reforming islam. But as Europe is not exactly like US, neither will the ME be like us. They will find what works for them. They need to stop killing us and everyone else who doesn’t agree w/the religion of pieces.

Peace – again western or islamic definition?

Nov 19, 2005 - 2:30 pm 91. Shochu John:

Peter,

You say:

“It is your comprehension that is the problem,you are making your own definition then justifying your argument by it.Do you actually know anything about the subject? Destructiveness is NOT an indicator of military success,the Wehrmacht we incredibly proficient at destructiveness,viz the invasion of the Soviet Union,they still got its arse kicked all the way back to Berlin.”

Umm, didn’t I just say that? Let’s look: “This is the main difference between conventional and insurgent warfare that people here seem to be stubbornly ignoring. When both sides have as their goal the capture of territory, as in WWII, for example, the level of violence does not indicate who is winning.”

You just provided an example that the level of violence in a conventional war such as WWII is not an indicator of who’s winning. FYI, that’s not actually disagreeing with me about anything.

You go on with a point about GUERILLA warfare, which I will answer independently, as I am not exactly sure how it ties in to your previous statements about WWII (CONVENTIONAL warfare). You write, “Violence is not a metric of progress in guerilla warfare,it creates hatred and destroy suport”

It depends on the nature of the violence, who it is directed against, specific cultural attitudes towards death, a lot of things, but one rule is universal, an insurgence that is hated in its own home territory will not survive. It will not be able to recruit, and the local populace will be more than happy to provide sufficient intel to the authorities to roll up the whole operation in short order. I have been hearing for almost two years (from various people attempting to convince us of sunny days ahead in Iraq) that the violent techniques of the insurgence is making the movement detested amongst its own base. If there were any actual validity to that, the insurgence would be over at this point. Quite the opposite must be the case when the MoD’s poll says that 45% of Iraqis say it is right to attack coalition forces.

The rest of your reply: “In respect to your reply,the Red States are more heavily armed.”

Yes, but that’s the US, not Iraq, where those that keep getting outvoted and are angry, well armed, and trying to start a civil war. This would be my point.

“The point concerning the Ba’thist and Sunni military expertise is intersting,they have a long and glorious history of military failure,their technique are more in the way of gangsterism.

What is this strange fixation leftists have with the Sunnis,that they keep brandishing them aloft like a talisman?”

They have a long history of military failure in their foregn adventures, but not in knowing how to control Iraq. Their gangsterism was quite effective there in maintaining their power (Note for the logically challenged, to say that gangsterism can be and has been effective at maintaining control of a nation is NOT advocating gangsterism). Indeed, it is remarkable that that Ba’athists survived in power in Iraq even after these disasterous foreign military adventures.

Finally, the Sunni Arab community is the base of the insurgence. How can you speak intelligently about the problem unless you address what is causing this particular sectarian/ethnic group to be embracing violence?

Nov 19, 2005 - 2:49 pm 92. PeterUK:

Shochu John.

Your Point?

Nov 19, 2005 - 2:54 pm 93. wingnutsrus:

Politics will trump all of your neocon fantasies. You in the fantasy-based community will have years to debate what could have happened if we “stayed the course” and transformed with the Middle East. i am sure will come up with lots of people to point fingers at.

It will be the GOP leadership in Congress who ultimately forces the hand of bringing the troops home. And it will happen sooner than later … as in right after the next round of Iraqi elections. Friday was just kabuki to beat the Dems into submission and make them look silly. The reality is that, yes, this war is over because the American people won’t tolerate it. Americans don’t support wars that are long, costly and ones where it doesn’t seem like we’re winning. That’s not an ideological statement it’s just historical fact. And if the choice is losing Congress versus declaring victory and going home politicians will choose the latter.

But rest easy wingnuts because when it all goes down the Democrats will look even stupider than they looked on Friday. They don’t have the balls or the vision to stand for anything. They are trying to have it both ways and their gutless tactic of standing for nothing will hurt them when the Republican leadership has effectively taken the war issue off the table just in time for the 06 election.

And, by the way, off topic, I AM saying that you are Nazis

Nov 19, 2005 - 3:40 pm 94. Shochu John:

Well Peter, I’d advise you to re-read what I’ve written so far in this discussion, as my thinking is all there. If you want the bottom line, here you go:

The insurgence is a combination result of resentment of the occupation (easy problem to solve) and marginalization of the Sunni Arab community in the new Iraq (EXTREMELY difficult problem to solve). The insurgence will not be defeated without solving these underlying problems because it has too much widespread support amongst the Sunni Arab community. Unless we have a plan to solve these problems, or think that the Iraqi government does and has just been holding out on us for some reason, our continued presense accomplishes nothing more than to delay an outright civil war, which is the far and away most likely conclusion. That is, unless, we want to occupy Iraq forever, making it the joint US/UK West Bank.

Well, that was a long bottom line. Now to Sandy’s comment, “Democracy is a part of reforming islam. But as Europe is not exactly like US, neither will the ME be like us. They will find what works for them. They need to stop killing us and everyone else who doesn’t agree w/the religion of pieces.”

Well, this is a fascinating bit of anti-Islam. I guess I could start by noting that the Muslims in Turkey, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Malaysia may be suprised to learn that they need to reform their religion to make democracy work, as it seems to be working already. Let me also add that terrorism is not a problem with Islam nor is it confined to Islam. In fact, the far and away biggest users of suicide terrorism in the recent past are atheists of Hindu origin (the Tamil Tigers). Let us not forget that even in the American experience, terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph are about as Islamic as baseball and apple pie.

If this discussion is going to turn into an anti-Muslim tirade, I really have no interest in participating.

Nov 19, 2005 - 3:47 pm 95. PeterUK:

Shochu John

Read up on the history of the region,the Sunni have regarded themselves as the ruling elite for centuries.They believe themselves to be superior,fully justified in using whatever means neccessary to assert their authority because of their religious purity.

The fall of the Ottoman Empire left much of the Middle East in a debased tribal state,the Sunnis the equivalent of the Sicilians and ruled if that is the right word by gangsterism.

Sadly since you have ruled out Islam the rightful discussion of the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood is out of bounds.

A potted History

Nov 19, 2005 - 4:48 pm 96. PeterUK:

“Friday was just kabuki to beat the Dems into submission and make them look silly”.

Did they need any help?

Nov 19, 2005 - 4:50 pm 97. wingnutsrus:

Don’t worry Peter, when this is all over the GOP will look a little worse than “silly.” History will not be kind.

Nov 19, 2005 - 5:59 pm 98. jerry:

Shochu John:

Three years ago I was tired of hearing about the “Elite Republican Guard” as if they were the Waffen SS. You continue that tradition of touting the skills of the Baathist military leadership. They maintained power in the past because they had all the guns and were quite ruthless in murdering unarmed civilians. The situation is entirely different. The Kurds have superior fighting forces to anybody in Iraq and now they have adequate weapons. The US trained principally Shia new Iraqi Army will have an overwhelming superiority of force and training. Absent the presence of a restraining US hand the Iraqi Army will not sit around trying to “pacify the countryside while Sunnis, whether Baathist or AQ, conduct a bombing campaign. The Government will reduce the Sunnis town by town until they either submit, are driven out of the country or killed. Without a monopoly of power the Sunnis, who like most Arabs, are little more then thugs and they will be destroyed by the 85% of population who hates them.

Nov 19, 2005 - 6:18 pm 99. Sandy P:

How do you define democracy, John?

Nov 19, 2005 - 10:31 pm 100. Shochu John:

Hello again everyone,

Peter says, “The fall of the Ottoman Empire left much of the Middle East in a debased tribal state,the Sunnis the equivalent of the Sicilians and ruled if that is the right word by gangsterism.”

Well, Peter, as pleasant as it would be to sluff it all off on the Ottomans, let’s not forget their European successors in control of the region. This “debased tribal state” has a fair amount of British fingerprints on it as well. Also, as a matter of correction, I never said Islam was out of bounds, I said I had no interest in participating in a discussion that was going to be nothing more than demonizing the entire faith. Finally, however Iraq got to the sorry state of affairs it currently finds itself, there it is, and no combination of hoping and blaming is going to change that reality.

Jerry, I don’t think we actually have any fundamental disagreements here. We both think Iraq is going to end up in some serious civil conflict when we leave, that a genocide or ethnic cleansing of some sort (leaving aside the semantics of which is which) is a distinct possibility, and we both think that the Sunni Arabs will lose the civil war. The only thing we really seem to disagree on is how long it will take for the Sunnis to lose. I think they’ll put up a better fight than you seem to. In the fullness of time, we will have our answer, I suppose.

Sandy, relatively uncorrupt elections in which people get to select their own government from a pool that has not been restricted to serve the ruling party, and having the results of those elections honored. It is of course a sliding scale. There are more democratic systems and less democratic systems and at some point the line has to be drawn on how democratic a system has to be to still deserve the “democratic” label. As to our discussion, I think Turkey, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Malaysia all qualify as democratic.

Nov 20, 2005 - 12:01 am 101. Sandy P:

And France would not.

Interesting.

Nov 20, 2005 - 12:35 am 102. PeterUK:

“Well, Peter, as pleasant as it would be to sluff it all off on the Ottomans, let’s not forget their European successors in control of the region. This “debased tribal state” has a fair amount of British fingerprints on it as well.”

Sluff it off on the Ottomans,what on earth are you talking about? This was never mentioned.

If there is any fault with the Ottoman’s it was Imperial overreach and making the mistake of allying with Germany,mainly because of the threat posed by Russia.

The british did not want any part of the territory,but with the economic and governmental collapse of Ottoman Turkish rule there were few nations left undamaged to administer the region,whic again was in ,this time ,Communist Russia’s sights.Read up about the “Great Game”

“Also, as a matter of correction, I never said Islam was out of bounds, I said I had no interest in participating in a discussion that was going to be nothing more than demonizing the entire faith. Finally, however Iraq got to the sorry state of affairs it currently finds itself, there it is, and no combination of hoping and blaming is going to change that reality.”

In which case learn about the Muslim Brotherhood.

There you go again asserting something is so,what reality? Your version of reality?

So far you have not put foreward what you regard as a solution in respect to some of the Sunni minority’s terror campaign which is creating such hatred that the only thing that stops them from being ethnically cleansed is the Coalition Armies.

Nov 20, 2005 - 6:29 am 103. PeterUK:

“Don’t worry Peter, when this is all over the GOP will look a little worse than “silly.” History will not be kind.”

I see you are singing the Democratic marching song “Cut and Run”‘

Nov 20, 2005 - 6:47 am 104. Shochu John:

Peter: “There you go again asserting something is so,what reality? Your version of reality?

So far you have not put foreward what you regard as a solution in respect to some of the Sunni minority’s terror campaign which is creating such hatred that the only thing that stops them from being ethnically cleansed is the Coalition Armies.”

Let’s bring the discussion back to topic, as interesting as historical tangents may be. I have not put forward a solution to this problem because there is no solution, from the point of view of the occupying force anyway. We can’t militarily force a given ethnic or sectarian group to accept an order they do not view as legitimate. Saddam could, but we are not in a position to replicate his style of rule.

Moving on, this one from Sandy is a partuclar head scratcher for me:

I say, “As to our discussion, I think Turkey, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Malaysia all qualify as democratic.” Sandy’s reply, “And France would not. Interesting.”

Huh, I thought we we talking about democratic Muslim-majority countries. France is not Muslim majority. Yet, interestingly, of all the many democratic non-Muslim majority democracies of the world that I was obviously NOT talking about, you bring up only France. I’m curious as to why that is.

Nov 20, 2005 - 8:41 am 105. wingnutsrus:

“I see you are singing the Democratic marching song “Cut and Run”‘

Classic wingnut style Peter. Attack the messenger when you don’t like the message. Go ahead and swift boat me cuz I know the message has gotta hurt. You’ve seen those poll numbers? Ouch.

Two things: 1. I am not a democrat 2. my point is that this song, regardless of who wrote it will be sung most loudly and led by Republicans fearing for their political “arses” as you would say.

There are some interesting arguments floated here but none of them are going to do anything to influence political reality. I think a lot of you need to spend some quality time outside of this right-wing circle jerk and see what’s going on in the real world.

We had a very small window to stablize Iraq and we blew it. It’s clear that we didn’t have a plan. Years from now historians will debate how and why the occupation was botched … Was it Bremer’s disbanding the Baathists? Was it a failure to secure caches of seized arms? Conservative antipathy towards government and distrust of wonkishness necessary to pull off a large scale occupation? Hubris? Arrogance? Leave that to the historians and masturbatory blog discussions. The American people have a short attention span and they don’t have the will to fight protracted wars that seem like a lost cause. Add being lied to that and they tend to get a little impatient.

You probably all wish that it was just the Hollywood liberals, Ted Kennedy and the Michael Moore’s who oppose this war now. But this shizzle has gone mainstream. Red staters scaping those W ‘04 stickers off the car and opposing the war. The majority of the public want to end this thing. And that is all that politicians of any stripe need to hear before they start figuring out CYA strategies.

Our country has been ill-served by a group of overly ideological righties who didn’t crunch the numbers and sweat the hard stuff. They got us into a war and didn’t figure out the logistics. That is their worst and most unforgivable mistake. I think that was when the neo-con movement began jumping the shark.

I for one don’t believe that the answer is in pacifism or isolationism. What we need is a return to old school hard-nosed realpolitik-based foreign policy. This country needs an ideological enema. We need to crawl out of our little right-left blog bunkers and figure out what the hell we are gonna do now cause the future doesn’t look too pretty.

Nov 20, 2005 - 9:00 am 106. jerry:

wingnutsrus:

You show the kind of detachment from reality that many critics of this or any war have. You obviously have no military or even planning experience shows. You have this idea that events can be scripted in advance. However, since the future is unknown, all a plan does is organize your thoughts. The enemy gets a vote on your plans and therefore, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. That is one the most important laws of war. So this idea that supporters of Saddam have that we screwed up because we did not have a “plan” shows and astounding level of arrogance that wells up out your ignorance.

Nov 20, 2005 - 9:58 am 107. wingnutsrus:

Gee Jerry

You’re so right. I don’t have military or planning experience but how does this refute any of my argument?

How does that change the fact that the majority of America is against you now? How does that change the fact that your boys lost momentum in the critical early stages of the occupation?

Let me get this straight, is your argument that “Stuff happens?” Gee if that’s the best you can do no wonder the tides have turned against you now. That’s not a good enough argument.

On the subject of arrogance and stupidity a number of influential right wingers assured us that the war was going to be over in a matter of months and that we would be greeted as liberators. Didn’t exactly turn out that way, did it?

Nov 20, 2005 - 11:20 am 108. wingnutsrus:

“However, since the future is unknown, all a plan does is organize your thoughts. ”

Do you really believe this Jerry? Are you saying that our great leaders didn’t have a plan? Are plans just for liberals and other weak-need tree huggers? Is it a sign of weakness that hard-nosed righties like you eschew?

Maybe if I had a military or planning background I would realize that plans are for pussies after all …

Nov 20, 2005 - 11:24 am 109. jerry:

Wingnutsrus:

Here is what those of us who have a military and planning background say: Those who know don’t talk and those talk don’t know. Your ignorance is showing. I suggest you humble yourself and study real military history. If you want to know what real fubar-ed operations look like I suggest you study Operation Overlord and Operation Market Garden. You might also want to spend a little time looking at the execution of the occupation of Germany. We didn’t have much of a plan for that one either.

I am not going to engage in intellectual gunfight with the unarmed. Go study and come back when you know something.

Nov 20, 2005 - 1:09 pm 110. wingnutsrus:

Jerry

I didn’t realize this was an argument exclusively about military history. I thought it was about politics. Thanks for the study guide but I fail to see how any of that wonderful knowledge has helped you to even respond to my argument, let alone refute it.

My point was simply this. Bad politics is the reason you are losing. So perhaps you should bone up on political history. But I am not going to engage in intellectual argument with the uninformed.

Maybe you think that if only the rest of the American public understood military history as you that the poll numbers would somehow be different. Maybe then the American public would say, “oh well come on, this war isn’t as bad as Operation Market Garden so we had better support it.” I don’t think so, dude.

After reading the posts on this blog I am convinced that many of you are willing to support this war as long as it takes–that you would stay the course if it were up to you. But it is not up to you any more. And the question you are going to have to ask yourselves is how did you let that happen? How did your team lose control of the war?

Yes, war is unpredictable and you don’t know what’s going to happen, Jerry. My point precisely. Fog of War and all. I see that as strengthening the argument of why we never should have gone into this war in the first place. I’m sure you will see it as exactly the opposite.

Maybe our tough-as-nails (rhymes with chickenhawk) leaders really did go in there without a plan. After all maybe war is really like an open mike blues jam and only dorks bring chord charts and sheet music. The real deal dudes just show up and jam. I don’t think it is though.

By the way many of you on this site talk about the military as a monolithic institution that wants this or wants that. Of course I don’t have Jerry’s extensive military and planning background but I do know enough about the military to know that leaders in the military have expressed criticisms and different opinions. Not every military leader has agreed with Rumsfeld’s logistics and strategy.

When it comes to discussing reasons we went to war I don’t think that people on the right and left will ever see eye to eye on it. Fine. That too is history. The point is what lessons we will learn from it and how we will move forward. If the only takeaway you come up with is that plans are for pussies and sh$t happens, don’t expect American citizens to keep giving you the keys to the White House and Congress again any time soon.

Here’s a hint. Try leveling with the American public next time. Tell the truth and stop speaking to us like four-year-olds and really make the case that the war is worth our sacrifice. Give us something to do other than telling us to go shopping. If you use lies and deception the window gets even shorter because eventually people wise up and they get pissed when they finally figure it out. You can fool all of the American people almost all of the time but they will catch on someday.

So, as we say in the blue states, adieu mon amis, you won’t have wingnutsrus to kick around anymore. I will leave you to fester in your own stew and I promise that I won’t come back. I have learned many things–for example that you don’t have to take it when someone calls you a chickenhawk if you support the war and don’t serve because, hell, THE ARMY DOESN’T WANT YOU ANYWAY!!! That is a good one. I will be sure to use that as I am sipping chardonnay and eating fine Belgian cheeses at the next Democratic fundraiser I attend in the Hollywood Hills. I have also learned that much of the discourse on this site is relatively intelligent (not yours, Jerry) and earnest and that many of you are deeply concerned about this country. But almost all of you are completely and utterly insane. God bless you all. Good luck and fare thee well.

Nov 20, 2005 - 2:09 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: